Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:46:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1440 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> Aaargh! I typed lengthy responses to two respective posts by you and by
> David, and both times my workplace suffered a blink in power, rebooting my
> computer. Thus we are all denied the glory of my wisdom, and thus we must
> all take on faith that I have successfully refuted your arguments and David's.
Darn. And I thought I was winning. Oh well. :)
> I assert that it is a difference in *kind*, because the existence of God
> cannot be experimentally verified, while the existence of Brazil can be (as
> Bruce spells out in his post.)
Ah, but God's existence can be verified by experiment. The only problem is
that the method of experimentation is too vague to be sure that you're doing
it 'right'. Were I Joe the Christian (Hey, J.C.!), I might say:
Step 1: Read the Old Testament
Step 2: Read the New Testament
Step 3: Understand the principles therein
Step 4: Open your mind to God and reach out for His divine presence
Result: God will show Himself to you in divine revelation
Is that replicatable? Sure. But it's so vague and nondescript that we can't
be assured that we're doing it right. And what's more, because of that, the
results may vary. And of course, that's the escape route that Christians
often take-- that you did SOMETHING wrong. And most often, they can't tell
you what specifically. What it boils down to is that they won't be able to
ensure that you CAN get it right.
BUT, that's again assuming that we have as much faith in the metaphysical
event as we do in the physical (or more, I guess-- or really even just
'sufficient' faith...)
> Further, I suggest that the essential process of perception is fundamental
> to our existence,
Agree.
> and as such it occurs at a level far below any choice to
> believe or deny.
Hmm... not sure I agree. Can you not choose to ignore certain perceptions? I
percieve that I'm angry at Bob for stealing my wife, but can I not ignore
that in the process of judging his worthiness at being hired by my company?
Can I ignore the optical illusion of a 3-D image given by a pair of 3-D
glasses to know that I can walk forward? However, I will agree that I must
acknowledge at least in part, that SOME of my perceptions are valid, or else
I'll get nowhere, and as such, no, I can't flatly deny ALL my perceptions.
> That is, even if I absolutely believe that fire is cool
> and comforting, it will burn my flesh, given enough time (firewalkers, for
> any who might suggest them as a refutation, are readily explained through
> conventional scientific means). My belief or disbelief in the existence of
> fire makes no difference. Even if someone suggests "well, if you don't
> believe in fire, then in *your* reality you weren't burned by fire but by
> something else," the fact remains that such a distinction is equivocal and
> linguistic, rather than actual.
Quite agree. The question isn't, however, what we actually DON'T believe in
despite evidence toward the positive, but rather the reverse. That we don't
believe in that which we cannot experience, or cannot experience in a
perception that we trust. Hence, if your perception of the flame was that
sometimes it burned your skin and sometimes it didn't, you wouldn't
necessarily believe with much certainty that the flame would harm you, you'd
just say it COULD.
> By the way... If you (in general) assert that faith in God is of the same
> "kind" as faith in our senses, then you're asserting that faith in God is
> subordinate to faith in one's senses.
Disagree-- if we were as assured of our metaphysical senses as we were of
our physical senses we could have faith in God via the same 'kind', and
similarly, if at least we had enough faith to believe them (metaphysical
events) with 99% accuracy as opposed to whatever percentage you might assign
them now (say 20% as a random nubmer to throw out there), they're still of
the same kind. And similarly still if the metaphysical takes precedence over
the physical. In short, they can be of the same kind without assigning a
supremecy of either physical or metaphysical.
> That is, since our perception is not
> verifiable, our perception of our own faith is likewise not verifiable.
And need not be in either case. Our perception of our faith is just another
metaphysical perception to begin with :) And as said, once we get to this
level, one must accept such perceptions as verifiable (in part or in whole)
as not accepting them would lead you to only guess randomly.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| Aaargh! I typed lengthy responses to two respective posts by you and by David, and both times my workplace suffered a blink in power, rebooting my computer. Thus we are all denied the glory of my wisdom, and thus we must all take on faith that I (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
